ILLINOr S

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

March

30,

1978

VILLAGE OF LYNDON.

Petat~oner.

v’

)

PCB

77—304

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECr~L)N

AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

Petitioner

~

requesting

a

Variance

from

the

drinking

water

standard for nitrate-nitrogen contained

in Rule 304(b) (4)

of

Chapter

6~

Public Water Supplies

of

the

Board’s

Rules

and Regulatic;nn

P~titioner’s

water supply varies from 14

to

18 mg/i of ~

which

is

above

the

Board’s

twelve—month

avera~r~

standard

(10

mg/i)

but

below

the

35

days/year

standard

(20

mg/i)

No

compliance

plan

is

proposed

which

would

result

ji,

compliance

with

Board

standards.

In-

stead Petitioner proposes

to supply bottled nitrate free water

to those users

wflo noed

it through a program of public notification.

In its Recommendation the Agency supports Petitioner’s proposed

compliance plan~

The ~gency

has recommended to the United

States government that the Federal Drinking Water standards

be also

revised to provide

for this sort of plan.

It should be

noted that the present Federal

standards which became effective

on June 24,

1977 do not allow any alternative solutions such

as Petitioner’s Proposal.

The Board

lacks authority to grant

relief from the F~ ?:-ul

standard.

In Monsanto

Pcn~an~v.

Pollution

Control

Board,

67

Ill.

2d 276,

367N.E~2d ~:

6~8(1977), the Supreme Court of

Illinois

state&

~-oo~oncept

of

a Variance which permanently

liberates a polioto~

from

the dictates of a Board Regulation

is wholly inconsisteot with the purposes of the Environmental

Protection Act~”Although Petitioner might not be accurately

characterized as a “poiLuter”,

it

is in effect asking for

permanent relief,

If Petitioner’s Compliance Program were

approved by the Board,

we would essentially be allowing Petitioner

to rewrite the Board~s standards to suit its needs.

The

Board’s drinking water standards were adopted on November

22,

1974 after an analysis of evidence on health effects and

economic and technical feasibility.

Now,

40 months after the

passage of the Board’s standards and

9 months after the

effective date for compliance with Federal standards, Petitioner

is asking the Board to sanction its disregard for these standards.

29—435

---

~~rrt~

~:t

t~

t:he

Board

to proceed slowly in matters involving

xe l~respecially involving infants and to stand

wit~oor:~o:cdeterminations

of safe contaminant levels until

con~Lnr~d therw~se

in a

regulatory

proceeding.

R77—13

is

~n:or~

pendinq before the Board and this unique plan

~

rreEoni:ed

ic that proceeding.

;~rconstltuces

~he

Board’s findings of fact and

:~or

Pir:i

~

~

law

~in

this matter.

PiPer

of the Pollution

Control

Board

that

~ooest for a Variance from

the

drinking

water

Ltrate

~nit;rogen

be

denied.

McLte~t,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

(c

~

~

r

Ic

reby

certify

the

above

0

inion

and

Order

he

~day

of

__________,

l97~

~istanL.Mof~~

::llinois

Pollution

ontrol Board

29 ~436